|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Vic Wertz wrote:
But you do realize how strange it sounds when I choose the keep everything I order for one monthly shipment option, you send me two shipments in one month and tell me everything is working as it should?
I think it goes by the day the shipment first starts to ship. Since it often takes them a week to get all the orders done. It is very possible for them to start at the end of one month and finish at the beginning of the next. That would be my guess on what happened here.
I got an adventure path installment sent to me, and now they're shipping me a companion alone. I don't want it to be sent alone. It's not supposed to be sent alone. They are supposed to keep it until they ship the next AP. Something is wrong with there system.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Yep. Which for a mini her size (the snake part at the bottom is longer than one inch) is too small. The sinspawn comes with the same base, and it's at least half her size.
The one in the pic, is the kind of base she should come with. Being a 40k player, I'm using a spare terminator base. Others might not be so lucky.
Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:
I don't have any numbers, but this quote rings true to me.
Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:
For longterm viability Paizo would have to go down the random collectable mini route. Its a proven sales model that works, albeit an annoyance to some.
It also gives GMs a chance at some more esoteric minis.
Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:
The PCs are only buying one mini each, which they are using for anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. The DM is buying minis for all the encounters he puts down on the table. The smaller group of DMs are buying more minis then the much larger group of players.
A PC is usually happy with a mini that is close enough. As a DM it really sucks putting down some orc minis and saying: "Alright, all these orcs are gnolls..."
If they would only produce something other than goblins, orcs, ogres, skeletons and zombies (the usual suspects from all mini lines) PPM monsters would sell like hot cakes.
Tom Carpenter wrote:
This is my first attempt at using putty on something other than gap filling or base enlargening. So yeah, I'm a total novice.
Best advice I could give you is, read a lot of the material out there on the web. There's a bunch of sites out there with great tips and techniques.
Other than that. Stay small. Work in stages. Do a bit, let it cure. Do a bit more, let it cure. etc.
The pros tend to call it pushing putty instead of sculpting. Pushing and pulling green stuff is the best way to get it to look the way you want.
Have a whole bunch of differently shaped tools. Clay shapers are great. Household stuff like sewing needles needs to be in your tool box.
Keep your tools lubricated. I use a wet sponge that I rub the tools on. When the putty sticks to the tool as much as the mini, stop and lubricate the tool.
Squared out the base for added stability.
Painting is mostly done. May go a shade lighter with the hair. Not to happy with the sword, had a problem with the primer. Need to buy a new can.
Lighting in the photos are bad. I'll see what I can do about that.
Made it myself from Styrofoam Insulation and a cotton ball.
I used Gamesworkshop's article on how to make asteroids for battlefleet gothic, but with a different paint scheme.
I find the difference between a sinspawn and a zombie to be vastly greater than the difference between a goblin and another goblin. The legs, the mouth and the hands, but your right it is a matter of taste.
The second part I quoted, I agree with 100%. That's why I say I believe they would sell more minis if they concentrated on BBEGs, instead of pumping out iconics and ogres.
the ogres and goblins created for Pathfinder are equally unique.
I like the look of the Golarion goblins, but the football heads aren't going to get me to add even more goblins to the tons I already have. If I was starting out, then maybe I would choose them over other.
The ogres on the other hand might have an interesting spin to them ecology-wise, but the minis are similar to the ogres of other companies.
I think the rate of minis being put out may be related to the rate of sales on the minis already out.
Which in turn may be related to their choice of miniature to produce first.
Ok, having the iconics as minis is cool, but do we really need another male human fighter? Sales may improve if they released unique stuff you can't get anywhere else. Like the sinspawn.
Also, the line is tied to the APs and four of them are out, with the fanbase spread across them all, but only RotRL has any minis. Maybe having the AP BBEG available for each one would sell better. In the age of prepainted plastic, almost only painters buy pewter, so maybe not. Who knows?
Anyway, I have no idea what the numbers are. For all I know the minis could be selling like hotcakes. But I know I want to see some more unique stuff like the critters in the bestiaries made into minis, not goblins and ogres.
Some of them, however, are fairly new to D&D and having to recalculate reflex saves and skill bonuses and attack rolls and so on and so forth will discourage them and bog down the game quite a bit.
A +2 to a stat equates to a +1 to the stat bonus. Ref save, attack rolls and melee damage rolls go up by 1. Don't bother with recalculating skills unless it comes up. If the player uses a modified skill recalculate that one skill.
Shouldn't bog down the game all that much, if you tell the new players flat out what the bonuses to str and dex modify. The modified int and cha can be kept more as roleplay, only recalculating associated skills when they get used, which shouldn't be all that often.
Didn't know if organized play was my thing or not, so I only preregistered for "Frozen fingers". But it's pretty damn fun, so I sneaked into Dam'Sadar's "Silent Tide" game as well. Next year I will definitely be running some slots.
Must say playing in a scenario DMed by it's own writer was a special treat.
Exactly what I'm saying. You have to add simulationist mechanics in order to simulate a genre. So not all mechanics simulate genre. That's the difference between Gamist and Simulationist. You have to remember that all RPGs are a mix of all three types of mechanics. When that game is called Gamist or this one Simulationist, they are referering to the prevalent element, but all are still present.
Never said it was the only narrativist rule in the book either. It was just an example.
That's a very narrow definition of role playing game. One liable to start a flame war on certain forums. Not by me though, I'm very much a trad role player. :)
There are gray areas with lots debate (or heated arguments) in regards to were some things fall within GNS. The presence of all three elements in every rpg confuses things and clasification is not as easy as you make it sound. Where do you draw a line on a spectrum?
Keep in mind also that GNS theory's primary goal, is to help rpg designers in their creation process. To help them identify mechanics which help the design or complicate it needlessly. In the end, it's their decision. Rigid classifications are not really necessary.
Again, all based on how I understand GNS theory.
No they don't. D20 is used in D&D which is fantasy, Mutants & Masterminds which is super-heroes, Star Wars which is space opera, T20 which is sci-fi, etc, etc, etc. There are very few mechanics in D20 which simulate any particular genre.
Narration in and of itself is not a narrativist mechanic. Having the DM describing the kings reaction to your social faux pas, does NOT make the game narrativist. The rules saying that the DM narrates a scene, the player reacts and rolls dice and then the DM narrates the result is a narrativist mechanic.
In games which tend towards narrativism, the dice (if dice are used) do not determine if your character succeeds at a task, they determine who gets to narrate. Lets say I, the player, roll and win narration rights; I may now choose whether my character succeeds at what he was doing or if he fails. I choose the path I feel will lead to a better story and more interesting conflicts.
Neither of those make sense to me. The base mechanics of any game can be reduced to generic mechanisms then built into specifically purposed mechanisms. This distinction seems very arbitrary.
This is a matter of opinion (like many things about GNS Theory). An opinion I disagree with.
What I like about SWSE is the condition track and that vehicles are represented the same way a people.
Characters/vehicles have hit points and a condition track. You die/wrecked when you run out of hit points and you are unconcious/disabled when your all the way down the condition track. I like this because a weapon set for stun doesn't affect a characters hp, likewise for ion cannons and starships. Also, conditions introduce a winnowing effect to the game, which is interesting. As you move down the track you get penalties to your attack rolls, ability checks and skill checks.
Characters, droids and vehicles (ground or starfaring) being represented (stat-wise) in the same way; gives the game a more unified and solid feel to me, YMMV.
On a side note, SWSEs Starships of the Galaxy's rules for starship customization are light years ahead of the ones for d20.
As I understand it, GNS Theory refers to a games mechanics. So with that in mind,
All RPGs attempt to simulate some kind of genre.
But not all of them have mechanics for it. A setting is not mechanics.
BTW - I think every RPG can be narrative, in fact every RPG must be narrative, so I don't really see that as a category.
Narrating the outcome of a roll, stating your characters action or talking as your character in the first person are not narrativist mechanics.
Gamist mechanics tend to be more generic in nature. They could be used for any type of genre or setting. D20 or Savage Worlds are good examples, IMO, of systems with a high percentage of gamist mechanics.
Simulationist mechanics try to simulate popular thropes of a given genre. Unknown Armies madness meters as well as 2ed Ravenlofts Horror & Madness check rules are all examples of fear/horror simulationist mechanics.
Narrativist mechanics is when narration rights are taken away from the GM or there isn't a GM in the first place. In Inspectres who gets to narrate the outcome of a characters action (between the player rolling and GM), depends on how well or poorly the player rolls. In Spirit of the Century, players can spend there fate tokens to make a declaration and introduce something to the story. In GM-less games narration passes around the table based on the rules.
Since the DM, RAW, always keeps narration rights, D&D has very few narrativist elements in it. White Wolf games as well for that matter, which is why I'm always baffled by the fact that people pick Vampire as an example of a "narrativist" game (in quotes since games usually include elements of all three- GNS)
James Jacobs wrote:
One of the things we've been very cautious about in the Player's Guides is the spoiler scene. Can we be a little less cautious? Would it matter if, for example, in the Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide, we warned the PCs in advance that they'll eventually be heading into high mountain terrain?
IMHO, you can be a little less cautious.
(Please forgive my using Star Wars in the following example)
And one more vote for more regional info (gazetteer type stuff).
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.